Purpose; To find the formula of the hydrate for Copper (II) sulfate.
Data Table:
Compound selected for analysis
Copper (II) Sulfate
mass of crucible (g)
28.56 g
Mas of crucible and hydrated (wet) sample (g)
30.25 g
Mass of crucible and hydrated (dry) sample - 1st weighing (g)
29.64 g
Mass of hydrated (wet) sample (g)
1.69 g
Mass of crucible and dehydrated sample - 2nd weighing sample (g)
27.27 g
Mass of crucible and dehydrated sample - if needed
Mass of dehydrated sample (g)
4.37 g
Mass of water evaporated (g)
2.57 g
1. Calculate moles of water - mass water (g) / 18.0 g/mol
2.57 / 18.0 g/mol = .14mol
2. Calculate moles of dehydrate - mass of dehydrate / molar dehydrate (found on first page)
Calculate moles of hydrate (moles of water / moles of dehydrate) - take #1 / #2
Data Analysis:
1. What is the proper chemical formula and name for the compound that you tested?
2. If you had not heated the sample long enough to remove all the water of hydration, how would you subsequent calculations have been affected?
Element
Trial
Mass (g)
Volume
Change (mL)
Density (g/mL)
Average Density
(g/mL)
Silicon
1
2
3
1.56 g
4.14 g
6.13 g
1.0 g
2.0 g
3.0 g
1.5 g/mL
2.07 g/mL
2.0 g/mL
2.1 g/mL
Tin
1
2
3
4.53 g
10.49 g
1.0 g
2.0 g
3.0 g
4.5 g/mL
5.2 g/mL
5.6 g/mL
5.3 g/mL
Lead
1
2
3
13.18 g
25.70 g
35.55 g
1.0 g
2.0 g
3.0 g
13.2 g/mL
12.9 g/mL
11.9 g/mL
12.5 g/mL
Element
Period
Average Density
Si
3
2.2 g/mL
Sn
5
5.3 g/mL
Pb
6
12.7 g/mL
Best fit line equation: y=3.2214x - 83
Correlation: 0.832
Prediction Density of the period 4 element (Germanium): 4.5
Conclusions:
1) 5.0 - 4.5 = .5/5.0 = .1 x 100 = 10%
2) Si - 2.33 - 2.2 = .13/2.33 = 0.6 x 100 = .6%
Sn - 7.31 - 5.3 = 2.1 / 7.31 = .27 x 100 = 27%
3) a. We should end up getting a lower volume and that would mean we would have a higher density.
b. We would get a higher volume and that would mean that we would get a lower density.
Lavoisier a liar? Can matter really neither be created nor destroyed?
Purpose: To prove that matter is conserved.
Data collected before reaction:
Reactants ; Mass (g)
Mass of empty beaker A ; 29.5969 g
Mass of compound placed in beaker A ; .7495 g
Mass of empty beaker B ; 28.4969 g
Mass of compound beaker B ; 1.2003 g
Total mass of compounds placed in beaker A & B ; 1.9498 g
Mass of clean filter paper ; .8826 g
Data collected after the water is boiled off and beakers are allowed to cool:
Products ; Mass (g)
Mass of beaker A & filter with compound ; 31.3959 g
Mass of compound recovered in Beaker A ; .9177 g
Mass of beaker B + compound ; 29.6035 g
Mass of recovered compound in beaker B ; 1.1109 g
Total mass of both A & B compounds ; 2.0298 g
Total Mass of compounds before the reaction ; 1.9498 g
Total Mass of compounds after the reaction - 2.0286 g
Conclusion: He is not a lair because when you find the percent decrease between the before and after reaction was 4% which is in the 10% error which proves he is not a lair.
I like hang out with my friends.
This is my selfie
Penelope Paige is who to bring in because she has the smallest foot print out of all 3 suspects. Evidence had shown that the foot prints were smeared. Someone can make big foot prints with little feet by dragging them, but big feet can not make little foot prints.
Determination of a Hydrate
Purpose; To find the formula of the hydrate for Copper (II) sulfate.
Data Table:
1. Calculate moles of water - mass water (g) / 18.0 g/mol
2.57 / 18.0 g/mol = .14mol
2. Calculate moles of dehydrate - mass of dehydrate / molar dehydrate (found on first page)
Calculate moles of hydrate (moles of water / moles of dehydrate) - take #1 / #2
Data Analysis:
1. What is the proper chemical formula and name for the compound that you tested?
2. If you had not heated the sample long enough to remove all the water of hydration, how would you subsequent calculations have been affected?
Change (mL)
(g/mL)
2
3
4.14 g
6.13 g
2.0 g
3.0 g
2.07 g/mL
2.0 g/mL
2
3
10.49 g
2.0 g
3.0 g
5.2 g/mL
5.6 g/mL
2
3
25.70 g
35.55 g
2.0 g
3.0 g
12.9 g/mL
11.9 g/mL
Best fit line equation: y=3.2214x - 83
Correlation: 0.832
Prediction Density of the period 4 element (Germanium): 4.5
Conclusions:
1) 5.0 - 4.5 = .5/5.0 = .1 x 100 = 10%
2) Si - 2.33 - 2.2 = .13/2.33 = 0.6 x 100 = .6%
Sn - 7.31 - 5.3 = 2.1 / 7.31 = .27 x 100 = 27%
3) a. We should end up getting a lower volume and that would mean we would have a higher density.
b. We would get a higher volume and that would mean that we would get a lower density.
Lavoisier a liar? Can matter really neither be created nor destroyed?
Purpose: To prove that matter is conserved.
Data collected before reaction:
Reactants ; Mass (g)
Mass of empty beaker A ; 29.5969 g
Mass of compound placed in beaker A ; .7495 g
Mass of empty beaker B ; 28.4969 g
Mass of compound beaker B ; 1.2003 g
Total mass of compounds placed in beaker A & B ; 1.9498 g
Mass of clean filter paper ; .8826 g
Data collected after the water is boiled off and beakers are allowed to cool:
Products ; Mass (g)
Mass of beaker A & filter with compound ; 31.3959 g
Mass of compound recovered in Beaker A ; .9177 g
Mass of beaker B + compound ; 29.6035 g
Mass of recovered compound in beaker B ; 1.1109 g
Total mass of both A & B compounds ; 2.0298 g
Total Mass of compounds before the reaction ; 1.9498 g
Total Mass of compounds after the reaction - 2.0286 g
Conclusion: He is not a lair because when you find the percent decrease between the before and after reaction was 4% which is in the 10% error which proves he is not a lair.
I like hang out with my friends.
Penelope Paige is who to bring in because she has the smallest foot print out of all 3 suspects. Evidence had shown that the foot prints were smeared. Someone can make big foot prints with little feet by dragging them, but big feet can not make little foot prints.